[
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 169–225.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense, volume 1, In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring sense, volume 2, The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring sense, volume 3, Taking forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1997. Resultative compounds and lexical relational structures. In Feng-fu Tsao & H. Samuel Wang (eds.), Chinese languages and linguistics III: Morphology and lexicon. 167–197.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4). 555–595.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2020. A head movement approach to Talmy’s Typology. Linguistic Inquiry 51(3). 425–470.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapopor (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Haugen, Jason D. 2009. Hyponymous objects and Late Insertion. Lingua 119. 242–262.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hu, Xuhui. 2018. Encoding events: Functional structure and variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hu, Xuhui. 2022a. Predicate formation in the XS-Model. In Linnaea Stockall, Luisa Martí, David Adger, Isabelle Roy & Sarah Ouwayda (eds.), For Hagit: A celebration (QMUL Occasional Papers in Linguistics 47) https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sllf/media/sllf-new/department-of-linguistics/hagit-borer-celebration/Hu.pdf.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hu, Xuhui. 2022b. Same root, different categories: Encoding direction in Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 53(1). 41–85.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. Complex predicates in control. In Richard Larson, Sabine latridou, Uptal Lahiri & James Higginbotham (eds.), Control and grammar, 109–147. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Huang, C.-T. James. 2006. Resultatives and unaccusatives: A parametric view. Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 253. 1–43.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Huang, C.-T. James. 2015. On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. In Yen-hui Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, Wei-Tian Dylan Tsai (eds.), Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kayne, Richard. 2022. Antisymmetry and externalization. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 43. 1–20.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li, Yafei. 1990. On V-V compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 177–207.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li, Yafei. 1995. The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 255–282.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 253–270. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201–225.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Sook-Hee Choe, Dong-Wee Yang, Yang-Soon Kim, Sung-Hun Kim, & Alec Marantz (eds.), Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mateu, Jaume. 2012. Conflation and incorporation in resultatives. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure, 252–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pylkkänen, Linda. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77. 766–797.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roberts, Ian G. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roberts, Ian G. 2019. Parameter hierarchies and universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roberts, Ian G. & Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Syntactic variation in the minimalist program: The null subject parameter, 1–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rothstein, Susan. 2003. Secondary predication and aspectual structure. In Ewald Lang, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Claudia Maienborn (eds.), Handbook on adjuncts, 553–590. Berlin: Mouton.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Snyder, William. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77(2). 324–342.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2001. The structures of depictive and resultative constructions in Chinese. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22. 191–221.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. A syntactic account of the Direct Object Restriction in Chinese. Language Research 43. 53–75.
]Search in Google Scholar
